Sorry, Devin, but I consider attempting to draw conclusions about consciousness and free will based upon a layman’s understanding of quantum mechanics purest woo. I don’t think it’s better when an M.A. in philosophy does it than when Deepak Chopra, M.D. does. I’m sorry if you thought that buying your way onto the podcast would buy your woo credibility, but it doesn’t in my book. All it does is destroy the SGU’s.

Phew - good thing quantum mechanics aren’t important for my account of free will! Really, i would be happy to answer any questions, but I imagine my view and Steve’s are actually in essence very similar. Where is it that the failure of communication is happening, and how can I remedy it? I’m saying things not dramatically different from other prominent skeptics, just perhaps in a way you aren’t accustomed to.

Sorry, Devin, but I consider attempting to draw conclusions about consciousness and free will based upon a layman’s understanding of quantum mechanics purest woo. I don’t think it’s better when an M.A. in philosophy does it than when Deepak Chopra, M.D. does. I’m sorry if you thought that buying your way onto the podcast would buy your woo credibility, but it doesn’t in my book. All it does is destroy the SGU’s.

Phew - good thing quantum mechanics aren’t important for my account of free will! Really, i would be happy to answer any questions, but I imagine my view and Steve’s are actually in essence very similar. Where is it that the failure of communication is happening, and how can I remedy it? I’m saying things not dramatically different from other prominent skeptics, just perhaps in a way you aren’t accustomed to. I can assure you that if you’re filing away what I’m saying as “quantum woo” or putting me in the same boat as Chopra, you haven’t made a very honest attempt to listen.

Do you think science is currently able to demonstrate the impossibility of any conception of free will, including deterministic ones?

reducing diet, nutrition and weightLoss, to the claim that energy imbalance itself is the cause of weight loss/gain , as opposed to the effect of other factors.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let's cut to the chase. Right or wrong: energy imbalance is necessary and sufficient for loss of body fat.

That would depend on your criteria for "necessary and sufficient."

My inclination is to argue wrong. You can be weight stable (no energy imbalance), while losing fat and building muscle (and/or growing, you're a child).

Suppose you lost 1 kg in body fat and gained 1 kg in muscle mass, so you’re weight stable. Fat tissue is 10% water, so 1 kg of it contains around 900 g of actual fat or 8100 kcals (at 9 kcals/g). Muscle tissue is 76% water so 1 kg of it contains around 250 g of actual muscle proteins or the equivalent of around 1000 kcals (at 4 kcals/g).

It’s expensive to build and maintain muscle tissue. Let’s assume it costs twice as much to build the muscle as it would yield if it was burned instead to supply energy needs. That would still mean that you would have to burn an extra 6100 kcals to match the gain in muscle mass with an equivalent loss in body fat, which would be a very appreciable energy imbalance, a far cry from your ‘no energy imbalance.’

Which would be reasonable. To build muscle mass, you need to do physical work (exercise). I’m not certain how much work, but 6100 kcals sounds to me to be about right for the amount of energy you’d need to expend. To build muscle mass, you’d by definition need an energy imbalance, you’d need to be expending more energy than you’re consuming, doing work, if you’re also reducing body fat.

If you increase your energy intake to match the costs of doing the work and building muscle mass (so there’s no energy imbalance), then you’d also not be reducing body fat.

reducing diet, nutrition and weightLoss, to the claim that energy imbalance itself is the cause of weight loss/gain , as opposed to the effect of other factors.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let's cut to the chase. Right or wrong: energy imbalance is necessary and sufficient for loss of body fat.

That would depend on your criteria for "necessary and sufficient."

My inclination is to argue wrong. You can be weight stable (no energy imbalance), while losing fat and building muscle (and/or growing, you're a child).

Suppose you lost 1 kg in body fat and gained 1 kg in muscle mass, so you’re weight stable. Fat tissue is 10% water, so 1 kg of it contains around 900 g of actual fat or 8100 kcals (at 9 kcals/g). Muscle tissue is 76% water so 1 kg of it contains around 250 g of actual muscle proteins or the equivalent of around 1000 kcals (at 4 kcals/g).

It’s expensive to build and maintain muscle tissue. Let’s assume it costs twice as much to build the muscle as it would yield if it was burned instead to supply energy needs. That would still mean that you would have to burn an extra 6100 kcals to match the gain in muscle mass with an equivalent loss in body fat, which would be a very appreciable energy imbalance, a far cry from your ‘no energy imbalance.’

Which would be reasonable. To build muscle mass, you need to do physical work (exercise). I’m not certain how much work, but 6100 kcals sounds to me to be about right for the amount of energy you’d need to expend. To build muscle mass, you’d by definition need an energy imbalance, you’d need to be expending more energy than you’re consuming, doing work, if you’re also reducing body fat.

If you increase your energy intake to match the costs of doing the work and building muscle mass (so there’s no energy imbalance), then you’d also not be reducing body fat.

reducing diet, nutrition and weightLoss, to the claim that energy imbalance itself is the cause of weight loss/gain , as opposed to the effect of other factors.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let's cut to the chase. Right or wrong: energy imbalance is necessary and sufficient for loss of body fat.

That would depend on your criteria for "necessary and sufficient."

My inclination is to argue wrong. You can be weight stable (no energy imbalance), while losing fat and building muscle (and/or growing, you're a child).

Suppose you lost 1 kg in body fat and gained 1 kg in muscle mass, so you’re weight stable. Fat tissue is 10% water, so 1 kg of it contains around 900 g of actual fat or 8100 kcals (at 9 kcals/g). Muscle tissue is 76% water so 1 kg of it contains around 250 g of actual muscle proteins or the equivalent of around 1000 kcals (at 4 kcals/g).

It’s expensive to build and maintain muscle tissue. Let’s assume it costs twice as much to build the muscle as it would yield if it was burned instead to supply energy needs. That would still mean that you would have to burn an extra 6100 kcals to match the gain in muscle mass with an equivalent loss in body fat, which would be a very appreciable energy imbalance, a far cry from your ‘no energy imbalance.’

Which would be reasonable. To build muscle mass, you need to do physical work (exercise). I’m not certain how much work, but 6100 kcals sounds to me to be about right for the amount of energy you’d need to expend. To build muscle mass, you’d by definition need an energy imbalance, you’d need to be expending more energy than you’re consuming, doing work, if you’re also reducing body fat.

If you increase your energy intake to match the costs of doing the work and building muscle mass (so there’s no energy imbalance), then you’d also not be reducing body fat.

Sorry, Devin, but I consider attempting to draw conclusions about consciousness and free will based upon a layman’s understanding of quantum mechanics purest woo. I don’t think it’s better when an M.A. in philosophy does it than when Deepak Chopra, M.D. does. I’m sorry if you thought that buying your way onto the podcast would buy your woo credibility, but it doesn’t in my book. All it does is destroy the SGU’s.

Phew - good thing quantum mechanics aren’t important for my account of free will! Really, i would be happy to answer any questions, but I imagine my view and Steve’s are actually in essence very similar. Where is it that the failure of communication is happening, and how can I remedy it? I’m saying things not dramatically different from other prominent skeptics, just perhaps in a way you aren’t accustomed to. I can assure you that if you’re filing away what I’m saying as “quantum woo” or putting me in the same boat as Chopra, you haven’t made a very honest attempt to listen.

Sorry, Devin, but I consider attempting to draw conclusions about consciousness and free will based upon a layman’s understanding of quantum mechanics purest woo. I don’t think it’s better when an M.A. in philosophy does it than when Deepak Chopra, M.D. does. I’m sorry if you thought that buying your way onto the podcast would buy your woo credibility, but it doesn’t in my book. All it does is destroy the SGU’s.